Landmark Judgments on the Rights of Fathers in India

Legal Bites presents a concise collection of landmark judgments showing that Indian family law now recognises fathers as active and legally protected participants in a child’s life. Courts have consistently held that a father’s custody, visitation, and emotional involvement are integral to the child’s welfare, reaffirming that paternal rights are meaningful and child-centric, not secondary or symbolic.

Landmark Judgments on the Rights of Fathers in India

1) A Convict Father’s Right to Support His Child’s Education

In Shafeena P.H. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025), the Kerala High Court adopted a humane and child-centric approach by permitting a life convict to be released on emergency leave for one week to support his son’s higher secondary admission process. Recognising that imprisonment curtails but does not extinguish fundamental rights, the Court held that a child’s right to education, emotional security, and parental support under Article 21 cannot be denied merely because a parent is incarcerated.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan emphasised that a father’s presence plays a vital role in a child’s educational journey and that the welfare of a meritorious student must prevail over rigid administrative interpretations of prison rules. The judgment expands the understanding of “emergency” parole, reinforces constitutional compassion within the prison system, and affirms that justice must remain sensitive to the rights and dignity of both children and convicts.

2) Birth Certificate Not a Bar to Father’s Custody Rights

In Ramakanta Majhi v. Sanatan Majhi & Another  (2025), the Court held that a father’s claim to custody cannot be rejected merely for non-production of the child’s birth certificate when paternity is admitted and the child’s welfare favours paternal care. Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court applied Section 58 of the Evidence Act (admitted facts need not be proved) and reaffirmed that custody determinations are welfare-centric, not document-driven.

Emphasising the father’s status as natural guardian and the absence of any allegation of unfitness, the Court ruled that technical deficiencies cannot override a child’s right to parental love, protection, and emotional security.

3) Biological Father’s Right to Custody Prevails Over Grandparents’ Emotional Claims

In Pravin Nathalal Parghi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that while grandparents may share a deep emotional bond with a child, such attachment cannot supersede the legal and natural guardianship rights of biological parents. The case concerned custody of five-year-old twin boys born through surrogacy, where one twin had remained with the paternal grandmother since birth. Entertaining a habeas corpus petition despite pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Court held that retention of custody by a person without legal entitlement amounts to illegal detention.

Finding no evidence of unfitness on the part of the biological father, and stressing that separation of twins was against their welfare, the Court ordered restoration of custody to the father, while granting visitation rights to the grandmother to ensure a smooth emotional transition.

4) A Father’s Right to Parental Affection Survives Marital Breakdown

In Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while parents may separate physically or even live in different countries, a child cannot be emotionally severed from either parent, as such deprivation directly undermines the child’s welfare. Emphasising that custody disputes are not about vindicating parental rights but safeguarding the child’s emotional, mental, and psychological well-being, the Court held that denying all contact with the non-custodial parent would make the child a “casualty of conflict.”

Balancing the child’s settled life abroad with his right to parental affection, the Court recognised digital visitation as a legitimate means of preserving emotional bonds and directed regular video interaction between the father and child.

5) Father’s Right to Custody Based on Child’s Welfare

In Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court underscored that a father’s right to custody is fully recognised in law and cannot be diluted merely because both parents are working or because the mother previously had interim custody.

The Court held that where the child is above five years of age, is emotionally comfortable with the father, wishes to remain in his company, and his education and overall development are not disrupted, custody with the father is legally justified. Rejecting stereotypes that caregiving is primarily the mother’s domain, the Court clarified that professional commitments, work-from-home arrangements, or past travel by either parent are not decisive.

6) Father’s Visitation Rights Must Be Meaningful, Not Merely Symbolic

In Aakash Dwivedi v. Smt. Pooja Mishra (2025), the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that while custody of a child below five years ordinarily lies with the mother under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father’s role cannot be reduced to token or overly restricted access.

Upholding the Family Court’s decision granting custody of the four-year-old child to the mother, the Court nevertheless held that limiting the father’s visitation to brief, supervised meetings in a court premises without any allegation of unfitness was unjustified.

Emphasising the child’s welfare and the importance of a continuing bond with both parents, the High Court expanded the father’s visitation rights to full-day access every weekend, underscoring that paternal rights include meaningful participation in a child’s life, even when custody is with the mother.

7) Father’s Contact Rights Are Integral to Child’s Emotional Development

In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a father’s parental rights and the welfare of the child cannot be defeated by one parent unilaterally removing the child from the jurisdiction of a competent foreign court.

While holding that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters, the Court emphasised that custody disputes must be decided solely on the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare, not on technical rights of either parent.

Recognising that a child has a fundamental human right to the love, care, and companionship of both parents, the Court stressed the importance of visitation and contact rights, including regular virtual interaction, especially where parents reside in different countries, and clarified that foreign court orders deserve due respect but must yield to the best interests of the child.

8) Father’s Right to Custody as Natural Guardian Prevails, Subject to Child’s Welfare

In Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors. (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a biological father, as the surviving natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, has a preferential right to the custody of his minor child, unless shown to be unfit.

The Court held that continued custody of a child by maternal relatives, even if driven by compassionate circumstances, amounts to illegal detention once the father seeks custody.

While reiterating that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, the Court found that denying custody to a fit father would deprive both the child and parent of mutual love and care, and upheld the maintainability of habeas corpus to restore custody to the natural guardian, while balancing equities through structured visitation rights for relatives.